Should DayZ Be Censored?

[3rdparty 229]

I wouldn't call those games near as taboo as torturing another living player (someone is on the other end of that screen).

I understand that this isn't a debate about law, but seeing as Rocket is from New Zealand, he would not allow this game to be outlawed there.

There is also no benefit in torture, as said before. People kill players for loot, or to protect themselves. Torture would not have any benefits, and several big cons.

Yea thats because boundaries and taboos have changed! thats the nature of em!

and yup that was strictly off the menu tonight, because technically alot of debates could be shut down around the pretense of "legislation"

and seeing as you dont see the point, let me give you an example.

Scenario One: A friend has been captured, tortured and mutilated by a troll, you return the favour not out of trolling but out of revenge (notice how the intention is different)

Scenario Two: Rival Bandit groups capture and imprison a rival player, they utilize torture to extract info (this becomes possible through players desire to keep their character healthy and fit)

Scenerio Three (the best one): In whatever group torture case, there is always the liklihood of someone like you, who says "this is sick, wtf are they doing", the interesting part comes in, as to what do you do? Do you attack them captors and set that person free, do you stand by but feel increasingly detached from you team mates which determines choices you later make with them, or do you join in and progressively numb yourself to these brutal actions.

What I love about this potential is that it may unlock the kind of moral and ethical questions you expect to emerge from a survival situation.

As one of rockets ideas, is the ageing of characters (the ruggedness developing on their face), evidence of torture on people could be incorporated

Edited July 28, 2012 by 3rdParty

[ratfever 27]

Yea thats because boundaries and taboos have changed! thats the nature of em!

and yup that was strictly off the menu tonight, because technically alot of debates could be shut down around the pretense of "legislation"

and seeing as you dont see the point, let me give you an example.

Scenario One: A friend has been captured, tortured and mutilated by a troll, you return the favour not out of trolling but out of revenge (notice how the intention is different)

Scenario Two: Rival Bandit groups capture and imprison a rival player, they utilize torture to extract info (this becomes possible through players desire to keep their character healthy and fit)

Scenerio Three (the best one): In whatever group torture case, there is always the liklihood of someone like you, who says "this is sick, wtf are they doing", the interesting part comes in, as to what do you do? Do you attack them captors and set that person free, do you stand by but feel increasingly detached from you team mates which determines choices you later make with them, or do you join in and progressively numb yourself to these brutal actions.

What I love about this potential is that it may unlock the kind of moral and ethical questions you expect to emerge from a survival situation.

As one of rockets ideas, is the ageing of characters (the ruggedness developing on their face), evidence of torture on people could be incorporated

This would only help people grief even more. And evidence of torture that hurts gameplay would be awful. There should always be a way to be returned to health. And in that case, I wouldn't fear torture at all. It would just be a way for sick people to get their jollies out of this game. Most people wouldn't respond to interrigation in game, as they could just withhold their info and respawn after the torturers kill them and head to camp.

It seems you'd be better off with games such us the Fallout series or Elder Scrolls, which evoke emotions in your choices.

[3rdparty 229]

Nooo nooo, still i think ye are missing aspects, probably bits and pieces that i havnt really clarified or maybe mentioned.

First of all, yes they're would be greifers, but there would also be non griefers, peeps who like you, LIKE MANY ON THE FORUM, did not like this behavior and immediately would shut it down if they saw it. Thats what interesting about it, its the conflict of wanting to do it, and others not wanting you to do it.

Yup there should always be a return to health, but tbh the health system in this game is deeply flawed, and will certainly be developed and diversified, i wouldnt surprised if new injuries are introduced with varying debilitating effects. Sure ye wont be feeling anything, but ye may not want your character to be kicked out of prison only to be left hobbling home. And with that prospect i bet there would be a few characters who would give up info, potentially more easily then getting someone to give up their equipment (although i hardly see peeps complaining of this type of interaction)

And i played fallout, loved it, got bored of it, now im here. But that is a good example, the kind of characters you came across in that game, would not be possible on this game, because of limitations on sandbox human behavior, yet those are the kind of situations that are imagined and portrayed in horror/apocalyptic scenarios again and again.

The problem with this, is you cant leave the blame with an NPC, its all got to be be player driven.

[twinturbonet (DayZ) 294]

I vote you lock this thread. lol